Utah Legislature may take a look at accountability processes for tenured professors after audit

Utah lawmakers may soon evaluate how public universities hold tenured professors accountable after a legislative audit found the institutions struggle to correct instances in which faculty members are “persistently poor teachers.”

Auditors analyzed 666 performance reviews conducted in 2024 and 2025, which are required by law for all tenured faculty, and found that only eight of them were issued a teaching improvement plan. However, many had satisfactory scores despite having overwhelmingly low evaluations from students, the review showed. As a result, auditors said in a presentation to legislators this week that some students paid the price.

“Deans and department chairs described how much damage a single poor performer can inflict on a department when persistent underperformance is not corrected,” the audit says. “Poor instruction can contribute to students abandoning majors and academic programs, including in high-demand fields Utah needs. Even when students persisted through a course with poor instruction, they report being unprepared to succeed in their field.”

In some cases of misconduct or violation of policy, universities avoided going through the established process for termination and instead negotiated separation agreements. That’s because apart from standards established in Utah law to terminate their employment, universities have their own sets of more complex policies that need to be followed, auditors said, which makes the termination process lengthy and expensive. 

But those agreements have also been pricey. A tenured faculty member who was found to have spent thousands of dollars on a university purchasing card for personal expenses bypassed the discipline protocol and was, instead, offered a separation agreement.

In exchange for leaving their post and not suing the university, the professor agreed to receive a $175,000 payment, a reference letter from the provost and the signature of a nondisclosure agreement to avoid discussing the circumstances of the separation case. 

That’s a case that left House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, with questions about why it is so difficult to fire professors in the state.

“In some cases it’s the Legislature’s fault that we’ve what put into statute things and then allowed the universities to add policies on top of that that make it very difficult to get rid of somebody, even to the point to where I have clear violations of the law and policies, and taking advantage of the taxpayer, and we still had to pay them to leave,” Schultz said. “That’s what’s created this problem.”

Senate Minority Leader Luz Escamilla, D-Salt Lake City, was also appalled by the practice.

“This is criminal, and I mean it’s also irresponsible of the institutions, if they think they can get away with this,” Escamilla said. “I mean, as a constituent, I’m very upset.”

The audit recommendation, Nick Varney, senior audit and operations supervisor said, is that the Legislature consider whether the minimum due process for removing tenured faculty specified in Utah code is excessive. Auditors also recommend the Utah Board of Higher Education consider requiring universities not establish processes for dismissing tenured faculty that go beyond what the law requires.

“As we looked at tenure as it’s been awarded throughout the institutions, we didn’t see any examples of academic freedom being harmed, where any faculty were terminated for academic freedom reasons, we didn’t see any of that,” Varney said. “Our primary concern is when it comes to an issue where faculty can and maybe should be terminated for cause.” 

The root cause for the lack of accountability among professors in less egregious cases, auditors said, is the traditional leadership model of academic departments, a rotating system that could undermine authority.

“Many of the department chairs that we spoke with described for us some structural barriers that limited their ability to lead effectively. Often, it was a matter of a lack of time, training, and authority,” Joe Hadfield, the supervisor of the audit told lawmakers. “But there were also some deeper issues where the incentives for performance for the leader were misaligned.”

Department chairs, for example, know that they are set to rotate back into the regular ranks of faculty after their leadership tenure, “so there’s an incentive to keep the peace” instead of making bold decisions to keep professors accountable, he said. Sometimes, a junior faculty member serving as department chair has to supervise the work of a higher ranked professor. 

“We recommend that the Board of Higher Education redefine department chair roles across institutions to position department chairs primarily as academic leaders, rather than faculty members with secondary leadership responsibilities,” the audit says. “Institutions should ensure that chairs have the time and support needed to carry out their leadership and supervisory responsibilities. This should enable chairs to provide stronger leadership and oversight within their departments.”